Evil and the Death of Secularism

Evil and the Death of Secularism

Oct 16, 2024 | Culture, Uncategorized

In a comment on Facebook recently I said, “Secularism is dead,” and I got this not unreasonable response:

Not sure why secularism is dead, but post-modern thinking and critical theory are alive and well.

Looked at as a snapshot of the current historical moment, of course the commenter is right. Secularism in the form of woke cultural Marxism is at the moment of its greatest triumph in Western culture, but this triumph reveals its inherent weakness. Secularism promised a religious free pluralistic Utopia where the strife and conflict caused by religion would disappear. Religion would be allowed to have its place inside a worship building or home, but it has no place in the public square, a neutral place where religious claims are unwelcome.

There are various versions of secularism where religion is allowed some relevance, but only as a competing force with no inherent authority. In its purest sense, God in secularism is persona non grata, unwelcome because the God claimed by Christians was supposedly responsible for the wars of religion in the 16th and 17th centuries. When Descartes declared in 1637, “Cogito Ero Sum,” I think therefore I am, full blown secularism was inevitable. The Enlightenment, so called, made man’s reason the ultimate source of knowledge, and God’s revelation in creation and Scripture eventually completely discredited. Man was now on his own, and in due course we would we see what he could accomplish without God.

As I argue in my latest book, Going Back to Find the Way Forward, secularism has been weighed on the scales and found wanting. In America, for example, now a thoroughly secular society, some 50,000 people every year kill themselves, and over one and a half million every year try! Americans by the tens of millions take anti-anxiety and anti-depressant drugs. Divorce has decimated the family to the degree that most children grow up in broken families. Fetal genocide has butchered over 60 million babies in their mothers’ wombs, and it is actively encouraged as a moral good by one of our political parties, while the other party treats it as a secondary issue, at best. America’s biggest cities are practically unlivable, with death and violence a common occurrence. One could go on, but secularism clearly hasn’t delivered.

Thus I come to Evil. No, not that evil, the unpleasant reality we encounter in the world as the opposite of good, but a television series with that name. My wife and I recently watched all four seasons on Paramount+. The series first premiered on CBS in September 2019 but later moved to Paramount+ for its subsequent seasons. Unfortunately, that means the F-word started showing up, but that seems to be a requirement for streaming TV shows nowadays. What Evil represented to me was evidence for the failure of secularism as an explanation for the world we actually inhabit. Secularism, remember, is an explanation for reality that doesn’t require God, or any kind of spiritual reality. Charles Taylor in his magisterial work, A Secular Age, explores how reality in the modern world has been “disenchanted,” flattened out, immanentized. That flattened out world is what Evil wrestles with, and I think quite effectively.

Evil and the Poverty of Secularism-No Such Thing as Unbelief
The show has a trio of protagonists, actors you wouldn’t know, but as the series progresses you come to love. The Catholic Church, which we all know, plays a staring roll in the series as the backdrop for the demonic and spiritual war human beings experience whether they acknowledge that or not, and two of the main characters refuse to acknowledge it. One is a scientist, Ben Shakir, a confirmed atheist from a Muslim background, and the other, Kristen Bouchard, a psychologist who goes between atheism and agnosticism. The third of the trio becomes a Catholic priest, Father David Acosta. The dynamic between the three is fun and fascinating to watch.

Evil is often campy, as in the definition of the word, absurdly exaggerated, artificial, or affected in a usually humorous way, but never to make fun of or demean the idea of a spiritual reality we can’t comprehend. On the contrary, the dynamic of the trio plays off of the battle each has to believe in a reality they can only possibly see if they believe in it, and even then not clearly. Oh, did I mention, their day jobs are working for the Catholic church as “Assessors,” to see if cases of apparent demonic possession are really demonic and don’t have some other “natural” explanation. Ben and Kristin use everything they can in their scientific and psychological tool kit to explain away the supernatural, but Father Acosta and the other Catholic characters treat the demonic as a reality that must be dealt with.

The writers do a good job of balancing skepticism with belief, two sides of the coin of belief, but they have a sly way of making the skepticism grow increasingly absurd as the series progresses. I use the coin analogy because there is no such thing as unbelief, and each character struggles with what they believe, be it in the supernatural, like David, or the other two who struggle with their materialistic assumptions. Faith is required for either view. The series, however, leaves no doubt as to which is real, and it isn’t the latter. The demons, in fact, are the chief protagonists in the series, and although they are portrayed as utterly bizarre figures (played all by one actor, amazingly), they are never less than evil. The most evil figure, ironically, turns out to be fully human, played wonderfully by Michael Emerson as Leland Townsand.

As we continued to watch Evil develop, I couldn’t help feeling that the writers were making fun of the secular worldview, showing how shallow it can be as any kind of ultimate explanation of reality. Ben and Kristin end up having an ongoing crisis of faith as much as David does, but David’s faith seems more grounded in what is real because the spiritual realm is real. The writers do a good job of showing everyone does in fact live by faith. There could have been a Christian in the writers’ room who knows something about apologetics, but that’s asking far too much of the current Hollywood. I have an idea. Why don’t we have a discipleship program for screenwriters, and then help them develop their careers writing screenplays that reflect a solid Christian worldview. The current younger generations gets this, while my boomer generation most certainly did not, but I digress.

James K.A. Smith wrote a little book about Taylor’s massive book called, How (not) to be Secular, and in it he explains how “the conditions of belief” have shifted over the centuries. What was once a spiritual taken for granted reality, has become a disenchanted secular reality. This quotation gets to the heart of the struggle we see explored in Evil:

It is a mainstay of secularization theory that modernity “disenchants” the world—evacuates it of spirits and various ghosts in the machine. Diseases are not demonic, mental illness is no longer possession, the body is no longer ensouled. . . . the magical “spiritual” world is dissolved and we are left with the machinations of matter. . . . this is primarily a shift in the location of meaning, moving it from “the world” into “the mind.” Significance no longer inheres in things; rather, meaning and significance are a property of minds who perceive meaning internally. . . . meaning is now located in agents.

This is exactly what Ben and Kristen attempt to do at every encounter of something that they think they can explain from their naturalistic assumptions. As the series progresses, that becomes increasingly pathetic.

The Secular Crisis of Faith and the Great Awakening
Claiming secularism is having a crisis of faith has a strange ring to most people because secularism is so ingrained as our ultimate plausibility structure, religious or not, Christian or not. It affects all of us. As I argued, everyone lives by faith, and all people are “believers,” the question being what they believe in. After 300 years as an experiment of trying to run a society without God, secularism as a worldview is sucking air, showing its age, and I believe on life support. The evidence is everywhere; Evil is just one entertaining piece adding to the beyond a reasonable doubt conviction to come.

Billionaire savior of Twitter and free speech, Elon Musk, has been going through his own red pill experience in real time on Twitter, or X, take your pick. Recently, Musk posted something that tells us his red pill journey is taking a distinctly religious turn. Below is that post, as well as my comment on it on my re-post:

Here is Musk:

 

This is what a Great Awakening looks like in a secular age and post-Christian culture. It won’t look like the First and Second Awakening in what were thoroughly Christian cultures. The plausibility structures are slowly shifting away from a default secularism because it’s a poverty stricken worldview that promises everything and delivers nothing but misery and despair. Elon is on my heathen prayer list, and we will pray he makes it all the way to Jesus.

The premise of my book is that God used Donald J. Trump, the most unlikely of unlikely men, to trigger a 21st century Great Awakening. It isn’t Trump himself, mind you, but the utterly irrational reaction to Trump. Nothing like it has ever happened in American history. I would argue the reaction to Lincoln was as intense and obsessive, but it wasn’t irrational. The tyranny Lincoln exercised in the pursuit of the Union was real, whether justified or not is the eternal question. Trump, supposedly the second coming of Hitler, doesn’t have a tyrannical bone in his body, and we had four years of him as President proving that. It was this irrational response to Trump that opened my mind to him in the first place because I was no fan, to say the least. I thought nobody could be that evil, and decided to give him a real listen. The irrationality has only seemed to have gotten worse, which is opening even more people’s eyes to the truth.

This reaction began a red pill experience for tens of millions of Americans all over the political, religious, and cultural spectrum, including me. Covid was the red pill neutron bomb that for many rational people was the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back. The lies in the service of tyranny, and for our good, remember, were just too much, and a huge number of people will never see government or “experts” the same ever again. This is directly related to the secular crisis of faith.

Secular, flattened reality, the perception that the material is all there is, or at least all that matters, is also coming increasingly into question for millions of people. It was the materialism myth born out of the Enlightenment that gave us the hubris of science and the rule of “experts” in the 20th century. This questioning includes some very famous people like Tucker Carlson, and Christian newbie, Russell Brand. Very different people from very different worlds, God broke through the flattened secular delusions of the post-modern world, and both have embraced the only faith that makes sense of everything, including fake pandemics.

You can watch any number of Tucker Carleson interviews and you will see the Great Awakening happening in real time. One is Tucker interviewing Russel Brand, and they pretty much talk about Jesus and faith the entire time. At the end of the interview, Tucker asks Brand to pray, and he gets up and kneels down in front of his chair to pray. This doesn’t happen before the Great Awakening. In another interview, I can’t remember which one, Tucker says how he grew up thoroughly secular, lived in DC for 30 years in a thoroughly secular environment, and God was never a topic of conversation. Now, he said, he’s having these conversations all the time which would never have happened five years ago.

The End of Secularism
One could multiply Great Awakening stories endlessly because secularism has played itself out and has nowhere else to go. There will be no more 19th and 20th centuries where mankind thought their hubris justified. Imagine, for example, going to the Chicago World’s Fair in 1893 and what your reaction would be when they turned on the lights, something that had never happened in the history of the world. Everything was illuminated, instantly! You might be justified in thinking, is there anything with science and technology man cannot do? One would think the disasters of the 20th century made it abundantly clear that infinite progress and building Utopia on earth wasn’t in the cards, but secularism (life without God) hadn’t fully played itself out yet. That would only become apparent in the third decade of the 21st century.

It’s odd that God used Donald Trump, as I argue in my book, or more specifically the reaction to him, to jump start the awakening. I would not have had that on my bingo card. For some reason he broke the left, and the entire Uniparty establishment. He perfectly fits the bill of the bull in the China shop, and he wasn’t afraid to touch third rails like immigration, endless foreign wars, and the globalist elite decimating American industry. What’s even more ironic, is that God used this billionaire real estate developer and reality TV star to spiritually open the eyes of millions of people. This is where secularism comes in. The theme of the last nine plus years is lies. To the left, Trump was and is such an existential threat to their plans that lying was and is justified to accomplish their goal of ridding him as a political thorn in their side. Secularism is also built on lies, specifically that God is unnecessary for building a flourishing society.

The reason I say secularism has played itself out is because there is nothing secular on the other side of secularism. We can date the beginning of the secular experiment to Rene Descartes writing in 1637 “Cogito Ergo Sum,” I think therefore I am, and thus the began rationalism. Instead of God, man and his reason became the starting point of knowing, and over time among Western elites God became increasingly unnecessary, an unwelcome presence in society. It took until the mid-20th century for secularism to completely banish God from Western culture and by the 21st century secularism reigned supreme. Unfortunately for humanity, since secularism is a lie, there has been misery, suffering, and death. And what do our globalist elites tell us? Like the great Saturday Night Live skit, they proclaim, More cowbell! Yes, we need more secularism! That’ll do it! We’ll figure it all out without God getting in the way.

This claim has lost all its credibility, which is why an increasing number of people are turning to God, and specifically to the God in Christ of the Old and New Testaments. Keep in mind we’re almost 400 years into this experiment with secular societal organization, so rolling it back will take time, maybe a long time, but for an increasing number of people Christianity is now the only credible answer, and it’s time for Christians to step up. That means doing the hard work of thinking through and building what Christendom 2.0, as Doug Wilson calls it, will look like, and how it will all be implemented. We have a lot of work to do, but as I always say, work like it depends on us, but pray because it in fact depends on God.

The Rise and Fall of Dispensational Premillennialism in American Christianity

The Rise and Fall of Dispensational Premillennialism in American Christianity

Oct 9, 2024 | Eschatology, Uncategorized

When I embraced postmillennialism in August 2022, I knew next to nothing about where the most popular Evangelical eschatology, dispensational premillennialism, came from or how it developed. The reason this is important is because eschatology matters. What we think about “end times” will color everything we think about current times. It determines how we interpret the past, present, and future, not just the end of that future, but everything in between now and when the end comes. If we think planet earth is destined for an apocalyptic dystopia guess how we’ll think of current events. I’ll explain why, but I didn’t believe eschatology mattered for most of my Christian life. The speculation surrounding eschatology coming from dispensationalism drove me to become an eschatological agnostic. Or as it’s often called, a pan-millennialist, as in, it will all pan out in the end.

I’ve heard it called newspaper eschatology because it takes headlines and develops predictions from current events that supposedly tell us about when the antichrist will appear and the rapture will happen. These predictions have been going since the mid-19th century, and even though they never turn out to be accurate, that doesn’t seem to diminish dispensationalism’s popularity. At least as it is assumed by probably 90% of Evangelicals to be the truth about “end times.” When I became a born-again Christian in 1978, eschatology was a topic of conversation everywhere. The New York Times even declared Hal Lindsey’s The Late Great Planet Earth, published in 1970, to be the bestselling “nonfiction” book of the 1970s.

 

I’ve been learning the fascinating history of how Evangelicalism got to this point in a book I first heard about in this interview of the author, Daniel Hummel by Al Mohler The book, The Rise and Fall of Dispensationalism: How the Evangelical Battle over the End Times Shaped a Nation, has been a revelation for me. Most surprising has been learning that the development of this thinking in the 19th century was a direct response and repudiation of the dominant postmillennialism of the time. I’ll explain why, but I’ve been under the impression it was the horrific disasters of the 20th century that discredited the post-mill position, but that lamentable century was only the final nail in the coffin of its credibility. It was rather the distortion of the concept of progress in the 19th century with the development of knowledge and science. The distortion was a direct result of the secularism growing out of the empiricism and rationalism of the Enlightenment. God was pushed to the periphery of Western culture, and man enthroned as sovereign creator of progress and civilization. As God said of the builders of Babel, they believed “nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them.”

Speaking of Lyman Stewart, the founder of Biola (Bible Institute of Los Angeles, 1908), Hummel writes:

In his view, amillennialism was a battering ram to break up the postmillennial hold on nineteenth century Protestantism. With the growing popularity of theological modernism, which adjusted Christian teachings to the intellectual climate of the late nineteenth century, Stewart had identified his main rival.

The reaction against postmillennialism, however, goes back to the mid-19th century and, Irishman J.N. Darby. The earliest “new premillennialists,” as they were called to distinguish themselves from the old ones, are what we now call dispensationalists. To the new guys on the block, the world and the church were far too corrupt for the kind of progress 19th century postmillennialism promised. However it was Darby bringing his version of “end times” to America in 1862 right in the middle of the Civil War that dispensationalism’s march to dominance in American Evangelical Christianity began. There’s nothing like more than half a million of your fellow countrymen being slaughtered fighting each other to bring into question the very idea of progress. But it wasn’t only the trauma of war. As Hummel points out:

The days of postmillennial consensus ended in the 1860s. The Civil War’s violence and destruction helped shatter the image of the United States as the vanguard of the coming kingdom, but this was just the initial shock. Higher criticism of the Bible and Darwinian evolution, two academic discourses that permeated seminaries and universities after the war, began to unravel the biblical case for postmillennialism.

But as well see, the American obsession with progress would not die easily.

Progress and the Spirit of Nineteenth Century America

It’s striking to look back on this side of the unimaginable suffering and misery of the twentieth century, wars and numbers of dead, to realize just how much progress obsessed post-Civil War America. George Marsden observes that “in a nation born during the Enlightenment, the reverence for science as the way to understand all aspects of reality was nearly unbounded.” This reverence grew out of the heady Enlightenment assumption that science and reason could solve all mankind’s problems eventually. The stunning advances in technology seemed to justify the hubris.

All these changes were part of the industrial revolution after the Civil War transforming the largely agrarian society of America’s founding into a worldwide economic powerhouse. Along with change came problems. Industrialization and growing populations of immigrants flocking to cities along the East coast created deplorable conditions for a significant number of people. Christians thought Christianity provided an answer in what came to be known as the Social Gospel; a significant change in American Christianity was on the horizon. Many nineteenth century reformers, like the abolitionists, were Unitarians having rejected what they considered the illogical concept of the Trinity; their hearts were in the right place, but their theology wasn’t. German biblical criticism and its rejection of the Bible as reliable history and God’s authoritative verbal revelation had a profound effect on Christianity in the growing secular age. The also spreading rejection of orthodox historic Christianity in the mainline denominations, along with the suffering brought on by the industrial revolution, produced the response of the Social Gospel.

This struggle for the soul of Christianity (pun intended) playing out in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries came to be called the fundamentalist-modernist controversies. The new premillennialists (the term dispensationalism didn’t get coined until 1927) were part of the broader fundamentalist movement that eventually came to dominate American Evangelicalism. On the fundamentalist side were an amalgamation of Christians loosely held together by a handful of orthodox beliefs about the historical veracity of the Christian faith, and on the modernist side were liberals who embraced the social gospel and a religion of progress. To say these two were incompatible is like saying water and fire are not compatible.

From the late 1870s to Word War 1, the leadership of mainline Protestant denominations slowly but surely gave up any pretense in believing the Bible was a supernatural document. They accepted the Enlightenment assumptions of empiricism and rationalism, including the inevitable conclusion of German biblical critics’ attacks on the Bible’s veracity. These were the liberals, and conservatives who stood against them came to be called fundamentalists from a series of twelve short books, The Fundamentals, written from 1910 to 1915. Even though he was a conservative, William Jennings Bryan echoed what almost all Christians believed prior to World War I:

Christian civilization is the greatest that the world has ever known because it rests on a conception of life that makes life one unending progress toward higher things, with no limit to human advancement or development.

As George Marsden adds, “evangelicals generally regarded almost any sort of progress as evidence of the advance of the kingdom.” The Great War was used to attack the credibility of postmillennialism, but it was World War II that put the nail in the coffin. The Soviet Union and Mao’s communist China didn’t help.

Dispensationalism’s Eventual Triumph
Regardless of Bryan’s conservative Christian convictions, he embraced a concept of postmillennialism that dispensationalists rightly believed came from liberal Christianity and a distortion of the Bible’s understanding of progress as the providential working of God in history through His people. A postmillennialism based on Enlightenment assumptions could never last because progress is a Jewish and Christian concept the pagans stole and bastardized. It’s almost like thinking a man can become a woman and a woman a man, not that anyone would ever think such a thing. The two versions of progress are as mutually exclusive as the sexes. But why did dispensational premillennialism triumph and become the dominant eschatology of 20th century Evangelicalism?

Before the nail was driven into the coffin by the horrors of 20th century war and death, revivalism and the great evangelist, D.L. Moody, paved the way. According to Hummell:

These two implications of Moody’s ministry—the popularization and fusion of new premillennialism with revivalism—could hardly be separated. They worked together to form a potent and wildly successful message. Moody’s ministry spearheaded an interdenominational evangelical ethos shot through with the influences of premillennialism.

It’s hard to imagine in post-Christian America just how popular and influential Moody was. When he embraced dispensationalism It gained instant credibility, which in due course would influence one of the most consequential Christians of the 20th century, Cyrus Ingerson Scofield. Scofield developed and published his reference Bible in 1909, which arguably became the most influential book molding 20th century fundamentalism which in due course became Evangelicalism. It sold a million copies in less than a decade and became the best-selling book in the history of Oxford University Press. Nothing like Oxford printing a book to give it max credibility.

Scofield systematized the dispensational hermeneutic, and with it as Hummell says, “Scofield transformed the new premillennialism [dispensationalism] into a full-blown religious identity for millions of Christians.” The Scofield Reference Bible was ubiquitous among the baby boomer generation of Christians. When I became a Christian in 1978, I remember it being spoken of in glowing terms, and highly suggested as a reference source. In fact in the early decades of its adoption, “it became a common marker of right belief in Moody movement circles.” This triumph was a long time coming for a new movement. It started with the Pietism growing up in 17th century Germany, made its way into a Brethren movement that eventually influenced Wesley, but importantly for the rise of dispensationalism, Darby, then Moody, then Scofield. His notes established the new premillennialism, revivalism, Higher Life teachers, and what are called Exclusive Brethren concepts as the default for fundamentalist Christians.

This peaked in the 70s with The Late Great Planet earth mentality, and I was born-again embracing every bit of it. For me it couldn’t last, thankfully. Yes, the 90s was the Left Behind decade, but when Kirk Cameron himself becomes post-mill, you know the jig is up.

Dispensationalism’s Pietistic Dualism
Although dispensationalism today has nothing like the credibility and awareness it had in the 20th century, it’s assumptions dominate Evangelical Christianity. It is those assumptions that led to Christianity’s cultural irrelevance in America. One of those is a type of gnostic dualism, a two-story Christianity, in Francis Schaffer’s words, which I learned in 1979 or 80 in his book The God Who Is There.  There are various ways to describe this two-story version of the faith, but it breaks life into two competing realities. Picture a house where upstairs is all the important stuff, the things that are truly meaningful and real, and downstairs is for the servants, the mundane everyday stuff. Even though it’s the same house it appears like two completely different houses, say upstairs is 19th century Victorian, and downstairs 1960s hip modernism. In Schaeffer’s words, upstairs “is above the line of despair.” Everyone without access to the stairs, is stuck downstairs trying to find meaning, hope, and purpose. If you do have a pass, you can go upstairs when you want to access the things that really matter in life.

This is where the Gnosticism comes in. This philosophy of Greek influence is a kind of secret knowledge which exists in the upper story, and it has little to do with what we experience downstairs. In fact, the stuff downstairs is only relevant as it points to and gets you the pass to the stairs. Then you can leave behind the servants, the Plebes, the hoi palloi, unless they too are given one of the passes, and they will get the knowledge that’s only had in the upper story. I’ve pushed the metaphor far enough, but you get the idea. Gnosticism, a version of Platonism, was a constant threat in the first few centuries of the church. It was the battle against this threat, among others, that forced the church fathers in response to develop the orthodox Christianity of the Nicene Creed we believe today.

After the Reformation, in due course the assumptions from dualism through Pietism, revivalism, and dispensationalism became the dominant worldview of Evangelical Christianity. Spiritual things were the important part of life, and the mundane and material a necessary evil, to be escaped through religious exercises like Bible reading, prayer, and church going. This was my born-again Christianity until I found Schaeffer and began my journey out of an upstairs/downstairs dualism of Pietistic Christianity. It took postmillennialism to finally eradicate it completely for me, but one doesn’t have to embrace that eschatology to escape from gnostic dualistic Pietistic assumptions. It’s just harder to do because these influences are ubiquitous in American Evangelicalism, like oxygen invisible and everywhere.

It’s fascinating to learn how this understanding of Christianity developed in its 20th century version from what came before. It’s impossible to overstate the influence of the development of fundamentalism in the first 30 or so years of the century, and how it’s become the default form of Christianity of almost all Evangelical Christians today. It informs, whether they know it or not, how they see not only the practice of their faith, but how they perceive the culture, including politics. The problem is that because of this Pietistic dualism, secularism completely took over American culture, and Western culture in general. I argued in a recent post that Pietism and secularism are two sides of the same coin. (I’ll put a link in the show notes. It’s ironic because a solid subset of the fundamentalists believed cultural and political engagement was a priority, but they eventually lost to the inherent dualism in their theology.

In the history of Christianity this kind of dualism was rare, although monastic life was a version of it. Reality for people in the Christian West was both material and spiritual. God and the spiritual realm of angels and demons was every bit as real to people in the Middle Ages as the material world they lived and worked in every day. It wasn’t until Pietism and the Enlightenment developed simultaneously in the 17th and 18th centuries, that secularism began its long march to dominance in the West. Christians, including me, often rail against secularism, and rightly so, but it was the dualistic over spiritualized version of Christianity in Pietism that gave secularism the cultural air to breath and grow. Even though Christians up to the early years of fundamentalism attempted cultural engagement, they didn’t stand a chance against the juggernaut of secularism.

To one degree or another Christians became so heavenly minded they were no earthly good. Add to Pietistic dualism an eschatology that sees evil and sin as inevitably growing worse until Jesus comes back to save the day, and you have a recipe for zero cultural influence, which is exactly what has happened. Thus we live in Wokestan. Cultural Marxism made it’s long march through the institutions with little or no push back from Christians and the church, and what pushback there has been, has been ineffectual. To bring Evangelical Christianity down to earth, both Pietism and dispensationalism need to be addressed critically for the inherent dualism they brought to the Christian faith.

A Christianity with cultural influence also requires an optimistic eschatology of victory, whatever you call it. Going into battle believing we’re going to lose is a recipe for getting more of what got us here in the first place. Embracing postmillennialism is what made all the difference for me and many others. It’s worth giving it a look if you have yet to consider it. The battle for the soul of Western culture is only just begun.

 

 

Numbers 13-14: Exploring Canaan and the Case for Christian Optimism

Numbers 13-14: Exploring Canaan and the Case for Christian Optimism

Sep 25, 2024 | Eschatology, Uncategorized

God communicates his redemptive story through a real people in history as a living metaphor for realities he would bring to pass in due course, a very long course. As I say, God is never in a hurry, and this took 2,000 years from its announcement in the calling of Abram in Genesis 12 to Christ. So as we read the Old Testament, the stories point forward to an ultimate fulfillment of those stories. Theologians call certain parts of those stories shadows and types of a reality to come. We only know this in supernatural hindsight because it took the Son of God, Jesus of Nazareth, to tell us so in Luke 24 after the resurrection. In this passage we learn from the word of God himself the ultimate Scriptural hermeneutics, or how the Bible is to be interpreted.

In this passage familiar to most Christians, two disciples left Jerusalem and were heading to a town called Emmaus, which is about seven miles from Jerusalem. They were undoubtably aware of the entirety of Jesus three-year ministry, and as they walked they were talking “about everything that had happened.” Jesus was once in a generation drama. In fact, the Jews had been waiting 400 years for their Messiah to come and rescue them from oppression. As I said, God is never in a hurry. As they were talking about the drama, Jesus came upon them but Luke tells us, “they were kept from recognizing him.” Jesus asked what they were talking about and they tell him:

They stood still, their faces downcast. 18 One of them, named Cleopas, asked him, “Are you the only one visiting Jerusalem who does not know the things that have happened there in these days?

They tell him about this prophet Jesus of Nazareth, “powerful in word and deed,” and about the crucifixion and an unfathomable report the tomb was empty and he’d been seen alive. Jesus didn’t seem to care that a crucified and resurrected Messiah was, literally, beyond the ability of Jews to fathom, and he rebukes them:

25 He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

I laugh sometimes when I read or think about this passage because how in the world could they have understood something they could not conceive? It’s almost like him gently rebuking Peter because he couldn’t walk on water. Really? Does anybody but the Son of God not sink? I like the Greek word Luke uses here for foolish. The extended meaning from Strong’s Concordance:

properly, non-thinking, i.e. not “reasoning through” a matter (with proper logic); unmindful, which describes acting in a “mindless, dense” way (“just plain stupid”).

I think we can pull out Jesus’ meaning from the rebuke considering how obvious he is saying the meaning really is, so obvious that you’d have to be a moron to not get it! Being God, he fully understands that no Jew prior to his encounter with the disciples on that road would have understood that everything in the Old Testament was about the coming Messiah. Certain prophecies, certainly, but everything? Yes, everything. We can now see with perfect 20/20 hindsight how it teaches us about the Messiah, this young man named Jesus from Nazareth, and he wants us to continually mine the depths of this teaching so that with the Apostle Paul at the end of Romans 11 after he’s laid out this redemptive history, we proclaim:

Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!
    How unsearchable his judgments,
    and his paths beyond tracing out!

In modern parlance from my boomer upbringing in the 60s and 70s, it’s mind blowing!

The Exodus as Metaphor for Christ’s Work on the Cross
Before we get to Canaan, we have to go backward to understand the picture God is painting as he saves his people from bondage and slavery in Egypt. We know from Genesis 1-3 that man, male and female he created them, was created good, but rebelled in disobedience to God’s command and fell into sin and death. God, of course, had a plan revealed to us in Genesis 3:15. The seed that will strike the serpent’s head in perfect biblical hindsight is Jesus, and the rest of Israel’s history helps explain exactly who Jesus is and what he came to accomplish.

The next significant step in the story comes in Genesis 12 with the calling of Abram, not discounting what came in chapters 4-11. God promises to make him into a great nation, and that all the nations of the earth will be blessed through him. In chapter 15 God begins to fill in the contours of the story promising Abram an heir even though he is childless at 75 years-old, and his wife is barren at 65. We then see a bizarre ancient Near Eastern legal ceremony through which God declares he will unilaterally accomplish all that He is promising Abram. He then tells Abram his descendants will be enslaved in a foreign country for 400 years, but that He will rescue them, “and afterward they will come out with great possessions.” That foreign country is Egypt and the next significant step in the story is how God rescues them.

Near the end of the 400 years, God raises up Moses to lead his people out of slavery. He does this dramatically by killing all the firstborn of Egypt and instituting the Passover where the shedding of blood covers Israel so they don’t suffer God’s wrath as the Egyptians do. The Pharaoh is finally willing to let them leave, and by mighty acts of God they are led through the sea to eventual safety in the desert where they wander for 40 years. Prior to entering the land God promised Abram in the bizarre ceremony I referenced above, we learn that land is Canaan on the other side of the river, the west side. Before we get to there, though, let’s take a short theological look at where the story has taken us so far.

Israels’ slavery in Egypt is obviously analogous to our slavery to sin. God makes it very clear that as it took divine supernatural power to rescue the Israelites from their bondage in Egypt, so it takes His divine supernatural power to rescue us from our bondage to sin. In both, he takes the initiative and we respond because He wants to make clear what he proclaims through Zecheriah, “Not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit,” says the Lord Almighty (4:6). This truth of God’s almighty sovereign power and control over all things is a reality on both sides of the river, what we theologically call justification, rescue from Egypt and sin, and sanctification, taking over the land.

Wonderings in the Desert and Living by Faith
The story of the Israelites spending forty years wandering in the desert before they enter the promised land is familiar to every Christian. The why of the wanderings is probably not so well known. The Israelites made a beeline from Egypt to the border of the land God planned for them to inhabit. In Numbers 13, God picks twelve men, one from each tribe, to explore the land of Canaan. It was a scouting mission so the leaders of the tribes would know what they were going to encounter when they entered the land. It is wisdom 101 to never go into any project without knowing what we’re getting into and what we will likely encounter as we engage it. The men spent forty days exploring the land before they came back and reported to Moses, Aaron, and all the people what they had found.

All reported that indeed it was a land flowing with milk and honey just as the Lord promised, but there were clearly obstacles to them taking the land and enjoying its fruits. They reported that “the people who live there are powerful, and the cities are fortified and very large.” This was the report from ten of the twelve men who saw these as obstacles to taking the land. One of the other two didn’t see it that way:

30 Then Caleb silenced the people before Moses and said, “We should go up and take possession of the land, for we can certainly do it.”

That’s called positive thinking! But the ten focusing on the obstacles wouldn’t see it that way:

31 But the men who had gone up with him said, “We can’t attack those people; they are stronger than we are.” 32 And they spread among the Israelites a bad report about the land they had explored. They said, “The land we explored devours those living in it. All the people we saw there are of great size. 33 We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them.”

Given sinful human beings tend toward the negative anyway, this didn’t go over well among the people. They decide to rebel against Moses and Aaron, even saying it would have been better for them to die in Egypt or the wilderness than to go into the land and get slaughtered and enslaved by these giants. But the two who saw things differently implored them not to rebel:

6 Joshua son of Nun and Caleb son of Jephunneh, who were among those who had explored the land, tore their clothes 7 and said to the entire Israelite assembly, “The land we passed through and explored is exceedingly good. 8 If the Lord is pleased with us, he will lead us into that land, a land flowing with milk and honey, and will give it to us. 9 Only do not rebel against the Lord. And do not be afraid of the people of the land, because we will devour them. Their protection is gone, but the Lord is with us. Do not be afraid of them.”

Of courses they don’t listen, and God says they will spend forty years in the wilderness, one for every day the explored the land. Then He also struck down the ten who caused the people to rebel.

I facetiously called what Caleb and Joshua were doing positive thinking, but it actually has nothing to do with that phrase coming from the modern self-help movement. The question before the Israelites and before every one of us is, will we trust the word and track record of the living God, or our lying eyes. Our eyes, or how we interpret the events in our lives and in the world, will always lie to us unless they are informed by faith, by trust in God’s goodness and love, His promises, power, and plans. The essence of sanctification, of becoming more holy and set apart to God is this struggle of either trusting God, or not. It’s binary as we say nowadays, either/or, we do or we do not. My constant prayer comes from Isaiah 26:3:

You keep him in perfect peace whose mind is stayed on you, because he trusts in you.

If it ain’t perfect, we aren’t trusting God.

Expanding the Field of Trust: The Entire Earth is our Canaan
It is obvious the message from this story is that our lives should be reflected by Caleb and Joshua, the joyful warriors, not the ten who grumbled and complained about the impossible odds of taking the land God had promised. And unlike where I was most of my Christian life, I now believe this perspective, the victory which we are to expect because of God’s promises and commands, applies not only to our sanctification or personal holiness, but to everything in life as far as the curse is found. Isaac Watts wrote the great Christmas hymn Joy to the world in 1719 and paints the picture of the Christian’s field of trust. The first two stanzas he wrote let the earth receive her king and the Savior reigns. Here are the final two to get us in the Yuletide postmillennial mood:

No more let sins and sorrow grow
Nor thorns infest the ground
He comes to make His blessings flow
Far as the curse is found
Far as the curse is found
Far as, far as, the curse is found

He rules the world with truth and grace
And makes the nations prove
The glories of His righteousness
And wonders of His love
And wonders of His love
And wonders, wonders, of His love!

Even though I’ve been a culture warrior since I discovered Francis Schaeffer in the early years of my Christian faith, and believed all truth is God’s truth, and that a Christian worldview applies to every square inch of life, deep down I was a pessimist. In the land we are to conquer, the entire world, all I could see were the giants. I believed we didn’t really have a chance, and it’s all gonna burn in the end anyway.

That mentality, thankfully, was prior to my embracing postmillennialism in August 2022. I had a typically Evangelical perspective of the Israelites wanderings in the wilderness as a picture of the sanctification in the personal life of the Christian. Those 40 years were a wandering, as is ours in this wilderness of a fallen world, so we have a lifetime of mostly futility because even though we can grow in personal sanctification, Satan has the upper hand “down here,” or so I believed. After all, “our citizenship is in heaven” (Phil. 3:20), a verse completely misinterpreted as meaning what really matters is heaven and the afterlife. Sadly, I bought the misinterpretation, which meant I was stuck in the wilderness until I die . . . .  then victory! That was the crossing of the Jordan river into the promised land, a figure of heaven. I no longer see it this way. Crossing the Jordan into the promised land was when the battle really began.

The tragic constricting of the gospel only to the Christian’s salvation and personal life only developed recently, in the mid-19th century with the rise of dispensational premillennialism. Those who developed it believed the world and the church were hopelessly corrupt, so they proclaimed the gospel should be preached and as many people as possible saved from the sinking ship because Jesus was coming back soon. In fact, dispensational premillennialism grew as a rejection of a secularized and liberal Christian view of postmillennialism that viewed it as the inevitable progress of science and knowledge. That position was completely discredited by the disastrous 20th century with only a few stalwarts willing to espouse and defend it.

Thankfully, that started changing in the last twenty years, and especially in the last ten. There has been a revival of postmillennialism, and I encourage you to join us. Once you buy the Scriptural argument, it’s a much more inspiring way to live because God in the reign of Christ is taking back the world from Satan one square inch at a time. As he promised the Israelites victory in the land of Canaan if only they would trust him and fight, so He’s promised this world to His Son, and we are his body to accomplish the task by the power of His Holy Spirit.

Read Psalm 2, Psalm 72, and Psalm 110 back to back, and ask yourself these questions . What if these truths apply not just to when Jesus returns to bring heaven to earth a la Revelation 21, but apply to his first coming when he accomplished his mission of God reconciling the world to Himself? Could it be that it is we, his Church, his people, who are to bring heaven to earth as he taught us to pray? That it is we who are to slay the giants and to cultivate the land, to be fruitful and multiply for generations to come, to subdue the earth and have dominion over it as Christ extends his reign, God advances His kingdom, and builds His church?

I’m just askin’.

 

Plausibility Structures and the Importance of Jordan Peterson

Plausibility Structures and the Importance of Jordan Peterson

Aug 7, 2024 | Culture, Uncategorized

Since I became active on Twitter earlier this year, mainly to promote my new book and work, I’ve noticed that Christians can be narrow minded and dogmatic. And lest you think I’m bagging on my fellow Christians, these less than appealing traits come naturally to sinners regardless of what they believe. Such myopia, the inability to see beyond their own certitude, is why I often see people saying that Peterson is not an orthodox Bible-believing Christian, therefore he’s either dangerous or not worth listening to. I could not disagree more. I believe God is using him as an important piece of the puzzle to re-Christianize America and the West. I believe this, strongly, because of a concept most Christians have never heard of; plausibility structures. This post will be a short primer on the importance of this concept for our specific time in history, living in what Aaron Renn calls “negative world,” and the importance of Jordan Peterson.

In my first book, The Persuasive Christian Parent, I explore plausibility structures in some detail, which is the idea of the reality generating mechanism of a culture. The term was coined by sociologist Peter Berger in his books, The Social Construction of Realty (with Thomas Luckman) and The Sacred Canopy. As a sociological construct (i.e., what it means to live with and among human beings and the culture and meanings they create), it simply means what seems true to us, and the social structures that contribute to that seeming.

A simple example is that for secular people God seems no more real than Santa Clause. Whether God is real, is not the point; what seems real is. Society creates the plausibility structures that contribute to God being plausible to us, or not. These structures are built into our educational systems, media, entertainment, etc. They are the secular air we breathe, and they affect us in ways big and small without our being aware of it. Christians are not immune to it either. In the West, God is persona non‑grata; if he exists at all he is merely a personal preference. I am convinced most people reject Christianity or never entertain it, because it just doesn’t seem real to them. For most, whether it is true or not is beside the point.

The sociology of knowledge is the study of how a life lived among persons in society affects their perception of reality, the “seemingness” of it. Reality isn’t just there; in some sense it is socially constructed, and the plausibility of our faith to us is directly related to the idea of a socially constructed reality. Christians affirm objective reality, that meaning inheres in things apart from our perceptions or experiences of them. Reality, however, is mediated to us in a variety of ways, through our senses, our psychology, our upbringing, interactions with other people, and society itself. This mediation means that although we affirm that objective reality exists, it must be interpreted by us, to us, and for us. Pure human objectivity does not, and cannot exist. Yet most human beings take reality for granted, as if their view of it was perfectly objective, no interpretation needed. All the while they are ignorant that interpretation is not an option; it is going on all the time whether they acknowledge it or not.

Secularism: There is No Such Thing as an Unbeliever
Western post-Christian secular culture no longer shares our Christian presuppositions. God, it is asserted and assumed, is not part of reality in any objective sense. He is wholly subjective, likely a projection of our wishful thinking, a purely personal phenomenon, and as such His existence has no bearing on society.  This perspective, however, starts with the secular world’s understanding of faith.

Secular cultural messaging denies that irreligious people need faith because faith is defined as something required only by religious people. Secular, non‑religious people, however, don’t embrace something called unbelief, but rather some other faith. All people live by faith, but we live in a culture that defines objectivity in a way that prejudices it against religious belief. Scientists and those who live by its light, we are told, can be purely objective, while religious folks by definition can’t be. This “objectivity double standard” allows the culture to define objective reality against us because in this view religious people can’t be objective. Secular people technically may not be “religious” in that they don’t go to church, but they still have a worldview based on faith commitments, which is why there is no such thing as an unbeliever. Finite creatures of limited knowledge can only exist by faith, by trusting the knowledge or expertise or insights or authority of others.

Secular irreligious people don’t know this, and many Christians unfortunately don’t know it either. To the secular, the Christian faith is less believable, less credible, than the secular faith they embrace which seems more credible, more plausible. This faith takes many forms, be it agnosticism, atheism, or an indifference to the claims of Christ, but it is faith, a trust in something, nonetheless. It seems more plausible to such people that God is either not worth pursuing, or even if He’s there it doesn’t much matter, or that any meaning to be had is in this life alone. None of this is merely rational or logical, and I would argue it rarely is. What they believe has more to do with what seems real to them than what is actually real. Society and culture in many ways determine this.

The Social Construction of Reality
In order to work under the rubric of “science,” sociologists have to bracket questions of truth or ultimate meaning. So when they say that reality is a social construction, they are not saying that it is only a social construction. What they are saying is that human beings interpret reality, give meaning to it, in social settings, and that social settings in turn affect that meaning. In the words of Berger and Luckmann:

Everyday life presents itself as a reality interpreted by men and subjectively meaningful to them as a coherent world. As sociologists we take this reality as the object of our analysis.

The key phrase here is “reality interpreted.” Reality isn’t self‑interpreting. Looking at the world through our eyes is not unlike how we experience a movie or TV show. The director constructs a reality, i.e., meaning, for us through various mechanisms at his or her disposal, and they are all deliberately, painstakingly used. After laying out an extensive list of what goes into making these virtual fictional worlds meaningful for us, Ted Turnau in his book Poplogetics says:

Each of these techniques adds meaning and texture for the imaginative landscape projected by the film, a world that the filmmaker constructs for our imagination.

Our world, however, is inundated with far more meaning than any film; it’s a veritable Niagara Falls of significance. And it doesn’t take a director to manipulate sound, light, or camera angles; we just have to wake up in the morning. The meaning exists out there, and we hunger for it as we hunger for stories told to entertain us.

Reality, however, isn’t merely something socially determined for us. The idea of the realness of reality, if you will, its objective nature, is both biblical and classical. In the Bible this is assumed from beginning to end, and Plato and Aristotle believed and argued that things have meaning in and of themselves apart from our subjective experience of them. The only other view of meaning, the default of most in the West, is that we are sovereign meaning creators because reality is what we make of it. Ernst Becker, a cultural anthropologist writing in the 60s and 70s, in his book the Structure of Evil writes that there was a “problem of creating meaning,” and that man is “the meaning creating animal.” His fundamental assumption about the nature of reality was that “man maximizes his Being by creating rich, deep, and original human meanings.” Even though in some sense we do create meaning, the difference for the Christian is that meaning is primarily there to be discovered. Our attempt to interpret it is to get as close as we can to the thing that is actually there, but as finite limited creatures we will always be one step away.

Whose Interpretation?
Even though as Christians we affirm objective reality, our everyday existence in the world is a constant encounter with a plethora of circumstances and experiences that must be, in one way or another, interpreted and attached with meaning. Berger and Luckman use the term, “Subjectively meaningful.” This reality is meaningful to us, and as such it must form some kind of “coherent world”; it must be comprehensible, it must make sense to us.

Everything, however, turns on the interpretation, which is “the action of explaining the meaning of something.” Interpretation, then, is where the true battle for the soul of Western civilization lies. Who gets to interpret reality? It is either God in Christ in Scripture, or secularism by default. The biggest challenge for the rise of a new Christendom is secular culture. As Berger points out in The Sacred Canopy:

One of the most obvious ways in which secularization has affected the man in the street is as a “crisis of credibility” in religion. Put differently, secularization has resulted in a widespread collapse of the plausibility of traditional religious definitions of reality.

And he wrote that in 1967! It wasn’t too many years prior that a universe without God would have been inconceivable for average Americans. Among Western society’s cultural elites after the Enlightenment it was totally conceivable, and it only broke out into the wider culture with a bang in the 1960s. Sociology helps us to understand how wider social currents, like secularization, get internalized into individuals.

The interpretation process and how human beings derive meaning from the world is interactive. Berger and Luckman:

It is important to keep in mind that the objectivity of the institutional world, however massive it may appear to the individual, is a humanly produced, constructed objectivity.

They call it a paradox that human beings construct a world that they “then experience as something other than a human product.” At first blush, concepts like “humanly produced, constructed objectivity” may appear arcane, but it is important for this discussion and Christianity’s influence in our secular world. This “seeming” process happens because all of us interact socially. In producing a world in our perceptions we externalize it, then interacting with it we objectify it, and finally we internalize it as “reality.” In effect our perceptions become reality for us, whether they reflect objective reality or not. You might want to read that sentence again, and think about it a bit. As Christians it is a good idea in our knowing and what we think we know to exercise some epistemological humility (I Cor. 8:2). I have written about that in detail previously.

Christians Should Not Take “Reality” for Granted: Says Who?
What does all of this have to do with Jordan Peterson? Everything! Reality and how people perceive it is in some way always socially defined. The dialectic process of a world becoming “real” to us is never ending. Christians can never take “reality” for granted because the question is always, “Says who?” That is, who serves as the definers of reality, secular culture or God. In The Sacred Canopy, Berger puts it this way: “The fundamental coerciveness of society lies not in its machineries of social control, but in its power to constitute and impose itself as reality.” The power of this imposition occurs when reality becomes taken for granted. We should never let reality be “taken for granted,” never assume reality is there to be seen for just the way people instinctively think it is. This is where Peterson comes in as a powerful question mark on this secular-taken-for-granted reality people inhabit in the 21st century.

Our Job as Christians battling secularism is to be consistently defining reality biblically. If we don’t, the hostile secular culture will always do the defining, and Christianity will lack a compelling plausibility to most people. The cultural air breathed throughout the West is plausibly secular. It is much easier for most people to believe in an irrelevant God (few are philosophical atheists) than the providential God of Scripture who ordains and defines all things. The challenge for Christians and Christianity at this moment in history, in “negative world,” is that we don’t have any cultural credibility. In fact, as Renn’s phrase implies, the dominant secular culture sees Christianity as positively harmful and dangerous. In this environment it is, practically speaking, extremely difficult to gain cultural traction. Most of us have little culture defining power, except in the very narrow pocket of our personal lives. Then, in God’s providence steps Jordan Peterson, himself a secular, Canadian liberal academic psychologist, and a most unlikely driver of a new Christian cultural consensus.

Too many myopic Christians focus on Peterson’s lack of historical Christian orthodoxy, as if that really matters for the cultural job God has called him to. It doesn’t. It’s almost a sport now, parsing Peterson’s words to see when he’ll finally take the plunge and declare with his mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in his “heart that God raised him from the dead,” so that he will finally be saved (Rom. 10:9). And being a man of many words, it’s a robust sport! It seems The Hound of Heaven is after him, though, given his wife is a convert to Catholicism, and his daughter an outspoken born-again Christian. Not to mention how many people challenge him on his conception of Christianity. But at this point, whatever the form and nature of this conception, his job is much bigger than his own salvation. I know that’s not a very Evangelical thing to say, but it’s true.

 

 

The reason Peterson is so important is because the “conceptual machinery” that elites in a society impose on the masses must be unmasked so that the underlying assumptions are always questioned. The secular culture like a machine grinds its notions, or concepts, into our plausibility field, so to speak, to make reality seem a certain way. This seeming must be questioned. As the popular bumper sticker in the olden days demanded, we must “Question Authority.” We as Christians in a culture hostile to our Faith must always question the authority of the definers: “Says who?” That is Jordan Peterson, and God has given him a huge platform to do that. This short video is a good example of how effectively he does that.

He also has credibility among cultural elites who are not leftists. Not being a run of the mill conservative Evangelical has helped him gain an impressive traction among people who would otherwise not find Christianity plausible at all. I’ve heard quite a few stories of people who have come to Christ because of him, so his lack of orthodoxy hasn’t kept people from being influenced by him to embraced Christ as Lord and Savior. The battlefield in our secular age is immense, and much of it happens, as Burger and Luckman say, on a “pretheoretical level,” that is prior to people even thinking. What Peterson is doing so well is again making the Christian worldview a player on the secular world’s stage, making it plausible for an increasing number of people. That means they will take it more seriously as a possible answer for the crying needs of our time. Secularism is not working, an experiment birthed in the Enlightenment that has proved wanting at every level. Let’s pray for Jordan that he makes it all the way to the only one who can save him from sin and death.

The Most Important Book of the 21st Century: “The Age of Entitlement”

The Most Important Book of the 21st Century: “The Age of Entitlement”

Jul 24, 2024 | America, Uncategorized

I heard several people reference how important a book The Age of Entitlement is, but I had no idea just how important I would come to see it. The title actually kept me from reading it for a while given I have a bunch of other books to read, and I thought I knew what it would be about. We live in an age when people feel entitled for a variety of reasons, and I figured it would be exploring this well-trod ground. The subtitle also gave me that impression, “America Since the Sixties.” Our culture that decade starting with the youth, the now much maligned baby boomers, pulled a collective tantrum, and I, me, mine, and me, myself, and I became the new Trinity American culture would come to worship. That preoccupation with the self was what I thought the book was about, but it’s much worse than that.

What is it about, and why do I think it is so important? And so important, I think it’s possibly the most important book of our troubled century? A turning point which had been brewing a long time in America was reached in 1964 with a concept and phrase most Americans see as unproblematic and positive, civil rights. Sixty years ago on July 2, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 became law against the votes of southern Democrats and with the help of Republicans. It was signed by the new president, Lyndon Johnson, and as soon as the ink dried everything in America had changed. Or it would shortly do so, and in ways that would in Barack Obama’s infamous 2008 declaration, fundamentally transform America. The means by which that transformation was unleashed that day was by a word now sacrosanct and unquestioned on the American left, diversity. The seeds of DEI, diversity, equity, and inclusion, and woke, was planted that day, and would become in due course a jungle of lies and dysfunction that would make America the unrecognizable mess it is in 2024.

Is the Constitution Dead? 

This video seems to be “controversial” in social media circles because it appears some people think the constitution that was bequeathed to us by America’s founders is not dead. It is impossible looking at current day America to conclude the constitution of 1787 is alive and well, unless you believe the constitution is playdough you shape into anything you want, which is exactly what it has become. The reason goes back to the progressives of the late 19th century. They came to believe the government of a   homogeneous population was no match for a modern industrial society. Woodrow Wilson saw the U.S. Constitution as an antiquated document for another time not up to the new realities of “modern government.” From Wilson would flow into the progressive bloodstream the idea of a “living constitution,” a playdough constitution if you will, which is of course no constitution at all.

Holding the firm conviction that with science and technology no problem seemed too big to overcome, progressives were determined to apply this mindset to government. Something called “scientific” management or planning by “experts” would become the rallying cry of the new century, and this mentality took over American government with the presidency of Wilson in 1913. As an academic, Wilson wrote a paper in 1887 arguing for “the science of administration,” which speaks to this rule by “experts.” This idea of ruling became the rage in the progressive era of the early twentieth century.

Because these “experts” knew so much better than everyone else, society, and thus people, progressives believed, could be molded from the top down. Law ceased to be what Scripture said it was, a means to restrain evil people and their wickedness (Romans 13), and became a mechanism to create a certain kind of society. Law was now a means of salvation from the depredations and vicissitudes of life; if Jesus isn’t your Savior, government will be. Slowly throughout the 20th century, law became a means to an end of the liberal vision of what a good society looked like. Man’s law was now salvation instead of the means to protect our liberties. Law, and it’s extension, administrative fiat, became a means of coercion to determine how we think and act, of course for our own good.

The founding generation, and why America became great in the first place, had a completely different notion of how a society became good. It wasn’t top down, created by government or law, but bottom up, from the people. They believed people could not be coerced to be good, virtuous citizens, but must have the liberty to choose to be good. Thus, the importance every single person of that generation placed on religion, specifically, Christianity. We could quote the founding generation all day long about the importance of “religion,” meaning Protestant biblical Christianity, but the most popular quotation to make the point comes from the second president of the United States, John Adams:

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

Again, and there is zero debate on this point, Adams was referring to the Christian religion. The syllogism writes itself:

  • America’s Constitution requires a moral and religious people.
  • America is no longer religious or moral.
  • America’s Constitution is dead.

But instead of the secular elite burning the old Constitution and writing a new one, they pulled a bait and switch. The Constitution had been tinkered with previously during the Civil War and the New Deal, but at least it could be argued it was the same animal, related to the original. What happened with the Civil Rights Law of 1964 gutted the original Constitution and replaced it with a fake, a counterfeit that bears very little resemblance to the original.

The New Constitution: Rule from the Top Down
The first section of Caldwell’s book is called, “The Revolutions of the 1960s.” Notice the plural. What exploded in the 1960s expressed itself in a variety of ways, the Kennedy assassination in November 1963 unleashing these forces in revolutionary ways. Not coming from a specifically Christian perspective, Caldwell doesn’t address the massive elephant in the room, secularism. None of these revolutions would have happened without its slow creeping rise throughout the 20th century. Ultimately, the only thing that will hold the state at bay is Almighty God revealed in the Old and New Testaments. When Jesus said, “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s,” (Matt. 22:21), he revealed the only means to limit the state: God. No God, means unlimited state. Secularism, and the Pietism that enables it, means no God because a merely personal God stuck within the church walls and in the home is culturally in effect an invisible and powerless God.

The most obvious revolution was sexual, which caused everyone to miss the depth of the race revolution, specifically in civil rights law. This didn’t mean the two weren’t intimately connected, as we’ve seen in the last 10 years. First, race had to be established as the fundamental narrative of the American Republic. Since the 1960s, Caldwell writes, “slavery is at the center of Americans’ official history, with race the central concept in the country’s official self-understanding.” This was not the case before the 60s. After this, he writes, “the constitutional republic was something discussed as if it were a mere set of tools for resolving larger conflicts about race and human rights.” The radical nature of this change is lost on most Americans, few if any knowing how unpopular the race revolution was. The ideology of anti-racism became all-consuming for America’s liberal elites even as most Americans resisted the re-formation of their country in the name of race. They didn’t have a choice. Legally, this was going to happen, like it or not, and polls show they didn’t like it at all. They would be made to like it, or pay, literally and figuratively.

What the Civil Rights Act did was embolden and incentivize “bureaucrats, lawyers, intellectuals, and political agitators to become the ‘eyes and ears,’ and even foot soldiers, of civil rights enforcement.” This means, “more of the country’s institutions were brought under the act’s scrutiny. . . . with new bureaucracies to enforce them.” The obsession of American government was to mold the whole of society “around the ideology of anti-racism.” In due course it all took on an inevitable life of its own. This race consciousness was also pushed culturally through education and Hollywood; it could not be escaped. Out of this milieu inevitably grew the concept of diversity as an unquestioned moral good, which means any kind of sameness is a moral evil that must be eradicated, which is why Obama could say diversity is “one of our greatest strengths.” This would never stop with race, and soon the relations between men and women, and sex itself became a focus of the diversity police. The sexual revolution went well beyond sex and debauchery. Although nobody could conceive of such a thing at the time, once the Civil Rights Act was passed, two people of the same sex getting “married” was a foregone conclusion.

As I said above, these radical changes had been brewing for a while, through the latter 19th and for the entire 20th century. The entire capture of America (and the West) by secularism was inevitable once the poison of the Enlightenment was unleashed in the 17th century. That too like race consciousness was a top down affair, intellectuals slowly pushing God aside until they finally shoved him out the window in the 19th century. What was unique about the 20th century was adding the idea coming out of progressivism of “rule by experts,” also pushed by the intellectual classes. The plebians, the lower and middle classes, could never be allowed to run their own lives and obviously make a mess of them and society as well, so the “experts” would come to the rescue. America is no longer a self-governing republic, but a society with a total state.

Want Your Constitution Back? Vote for Donald Trump
The fact that Donald Trump is the only man standing between America and the tyranny of the deep state proves that God has a sense of humor. Like many others, I was not a fan of Trump and thought his candidacy was a joke. He had no more chance of winning the presidency than the man in the moon. As with scotch, Trump was an acquired taste for me but now I like both, a lot. As I say in Going Back to Find the Way Forward, Trump is the red pill that keeps on giving. Just recently we had the conviction that “was heard ‘round the world,” and there was a run on red pills. People who wouldn’t in a million years vote for Trump, are now voting for Trump. Thank you, deranged Marxist leftists, and your Democrat Party. 

In my book I explore how the history of England and the common law lead directly to America, something we don’t learn from so called, “public education.” We have to go back to Alfred the Great in the 9th century to see the beginnings of the American Republic. For almost a thousand years the “rights of Englishmen” Americas founding generation fought for was slowly developed from Magna Carta in 1215 to the Glorious Revolution of 1688. In God’s providence, the great Puritan migration to New England from the 1620s through the early 1640s set the predicate for America’s founding: no Pilgrims or Puritans, no America. Of course, secularists deny that and claim America was a result of the so called Enlightenment, but that is a very simplistic distortion. I deal with this in detail in the book, so if you want details on all this, you’ll have to get the book.

As Christianity and the church made its slow decline into irrelevance, so did the liberties of Americans. As government power increased, so did the independent self-governing nature of Americans slowly atrophy as well. This decline also went hand-in-hand with the rise of what we now call, “the administrative state,” the bureaucratic apparatus that effectively governs almost all of our lives. It is pernicious and evil, and destroys the possibility of true liberty. This is the reason Trump is the mortal enemy of the left: he is an existential threat to their power, and they love their power. Since they ditched truth a long time ago to embrace postmodernism and “the narrative,” i.e., whatever protects or extends their power, all they have is the aphrodisiac of power and the will to power.

Trump has the gift of rubbing the right people the wrong way, and what most terrifies his enemies is that no matter what they’ve thrown at him, they can’t stop him. They know he did not become the success he is, and the most well-known human being on earth by accident. He learns from his mistakes, and he made a lot in his first term. He was naïve and gullible, as hard as it is for Trump haters to imagine that. From all the people I’ve heard who interact with and know him, they say he’s a genuinely nice guy. But he’s also a killer who not only knows “the art of the deal,” but knows how to win. Winners always learn from their mistakes because they really like to win.

Trump came down the escalator at Trump Tower on Monday June 16, 2015. He was a gift to the “fake news” media that didn’t stop giving. They didn’t take him seriously until he defeated Hillary Clinton, something that should endear him to every American patriot forever. From that moment he had to be destroyed, and we’re all familiar with the unprecedented efforts by the Uniparty to do that. I say that because the Republicans we complicit, hating him almost as much as the Democrats. None of what happened to Trump would have happened without their full cooperation, even if much of it was done by omission. It was this that finally fully opened my eyes to the con in Con Inc., and why I no longer consider myself a conservative. As I explained recently, I am now a nationalist populist Christian conservative.

The lawfare, a word most of us had never heard of until Trump, is the final nail in the constitutional coffin. And in spite of Trump taking up all the oxygen in the room, Democrat lawfare is ubiquitous; abusing the law is how Democrats gain and maintain power. It has literally nothing to do with justice or Our DemocracyTM. Peter Navarro, who served in Trump’s White House, is serving a four-month prison sentence for something that nobody in the history of America ever has. Steve Bannon, another alum of the administration, and a primary driver of the MAGA movement, is now serving a similar four-month sentence for the same thing. They are trying to throw Rudy Giuliani in prison, among others, and the travesty of the J6 prosecution has destroyed the lives of many innocent patriotic Americans. And to top it off, many lawyers in Trump’s orbit, or who defend patriots, are threatened with a pernicious process to have them debarred. It’s so Orwellian it’s hard to believe it is all actually happening, but it is.

If you’ve ever read the Constitution, and especially the Bill of Rights, you’ll notice that these rights were specifically designed to limit the scope and power of the government, not the people. In fact, the Tenth Amendment says this specifically:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Civil Rights Act basically took white out, pun intended, and made this amendment completely disappear. Ridding America of civil rights law is a long term project, but if we want a shot at getting our constitution back, it will only happen if Donald Trump is Elected in November.

The Left’s Obsession with Fascism and Nazi’s and Donald Trump

The Left’s Obsession with Fascism and Nazi’s and Donald Trump

Jul 17, 2024 | America, Uncategorized

I finished this piece prior to the assassination attempt on President Trump, and I had no idea how timely it would be: July 13, 2024, another day that will live in infamy. I added his name to the title because he is the quintessential example of the obsession. God clearly saved Trump’s life, even as another young man, Corey Comperatore, gave his life to protect his family. This is what you get when you call someone Hitler for nine years. To the left, Trump is an existential threat to Our DemocracyTM, an authoritarian tyrant that must be stopped, and one could go on. You can hear these three alone every ten minutes on MSNBC. I don’t want to believe this was intentional, but is there really another explanation? The only other option is complete and total incompetence, and I’ll be waiting for evidence and mea culpas, max mea culpas if that turns out to be the truth.

None of this should surprise us because the left has been obsessed with Fascism and Nazi’s for a very long time? Everyone who opposes them are Fascists and Nazi’s, even as the tactics they use against their enemies are fascistic and worthy of Nazis. They are skillful and shameless in their use of projection (accusing others of doing what they do) and hypocrisy, having turned it into an art form. This piece I saw the other day from some leftist is a perfect example: “Why Aren’t We Talking About Trump’s Fascism?” And the dude is serious! I’m convinced now they really believe it. There was, of course, zero evidence of fascism from Trump in his four years in office, but so what. He’s a Fascist! And if they can they are going to put him in prison on trumped up charges, as they’ve done to his followers, just like actual Fascists. That is projection. We’ll see where the lawfare goes after they almost killed him.

Have you ever noticed that this obsession is reflected in the products that come out of Hollywood? There are a zillion, give or take a few, movies and TV shows either about Nazi’s or where Nazi’s are the bad guys. If it’s not the actual World War II Nazi’s, it’s Neo-Nazi’s, who are of course the personification of ultimate evil, White Nationalists. Oh the horror! By contrast, the world champions of butchery and genocide, the communists, are rare in Hollywood productions. Why this obsession and contrast? We have two German scholars and their reaction to World War II to thank for this, Theodor Adorno (1903–69) and Herbert Marcuse (1898–1979).

Anyone interested or engaged in the 21st century culture wars needs to know about the Frankfurt School. In 1923, a group of Marxists established the Institute for Social Research as what we call today a “think tank” associated with the University of Frankfurt in Germany. In due course it came to be referred to as the Frankfurt School, out of which the world was given what we now call cultural Marxism. We can thank Adolf Hitler for bringing the cultural Marxism wrecking ball to America. If the Institute for Social Research had remained in Germany, cultural Marxism may have stayed isolated in Europe. However, when Hitler became Chancellor of Germany in 1933 with many in the school being Jewish, it relocated to New York City in 1935 and set up shop at Columbia University. It shouldn’t surprise us that Marxists would find a welcoming home at an American university in 1935—secular academia always welcomes subversive ideas first.

The primary insight of the cultural Marxists wasn’t that class-based economic oppression didn’t bring the fruit of revolution Marx promised, but that the revolutionary consciousness required would clearly not arise spontaneously; it must be assiduously cultivated via culture. They recognized Western societies produced cultures that were almost completely resistant to revolution. Marxist revolutionary consciousness had to find its way into the worldview of the average prosperous Westerner, and that could only happen through the transformation of the culture.

What the economic and cultural Marxists had in common, though, was their antipathy to Christianity because it stood in their way. Christianity and its cultural influence must be taken down, specifically through the eradication of traditional norms and institutions. The purpose of the Institute would be to unmask all the institutions and organs of culture that promoted and maintained the shared value systems responsible for the public support of those institutions and culture, most especially the family and religion. Paul Kengor in The Devil and Karl Marx identifies the strategy to accomplish this:

Rather than organize the workers and the factories, the peasants and the fields and the farms, they would organize the intellectuals and the academy, the artists and the media and the film industry. These would be the conveyor belts to deliver the fundamental transformation.

The film industry was captured by the cultural Marxists, and thus we get Nazi’s everywhere.

The process of transformation would be helped tremendously by someone who came between Marx and the Frankfurt school who had a profound influence on the continuing secularization of Western culture, Sigmund Freud (1856-1939). Marx didn’t have the discipline of psychology which developed later in the nineteenth century, nor Freudian teaching on sexuality, but the cultural Marxists did. Kengor calls what the Frankfurt school developed a kind of Freudian-Marxism, the worst of the ideas of the nineteenth century wedded with some of the worst of the twentieth. Both the older and newer Marxists believed religion, i.e., Christianity, and the family had to be “abolished,” as Marx put it, but the old way just didn’t work. The Soviets did everything they could to snuff out both, including murdering tens of millions of their own people—religion and the family, however, just wouldn’t go away. Bishop Fulton Sheen said communists failed to convince the world there is no God. Rather, they succeeded only in convincing the world there is a devil. 

Repressive Tolerance, Adorno and Anti-Fascism
After the war most of the faculty went back to Germany to re-establish the school, but Marcuse decided to stay in America. Adorno returned to Germany as well but returned to America in the early 50s for a time in order to not lose his American citizenship. Although he returned to Germany after a time, he had a significant impact on the culture wars in America. Marcuse though was the most significant figure to come out of the Frankfurt school. He became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 1940, and is most famously known as the father of the “New Left” and the counterculture of the 1960s and 1970s. In addition, he was influential in the growth of political correctness and the wokeness of our time. The “Old Left” were those who embraced the old orthodox forms of Marxism, and especially that as practiced in the Soviet Union. Young Marxist radicals by contrast were disaffected with Soviet Communism and looking for new ways to bring down the capitalist West, and the cultural approach of Frankfurt would come to dominate American Marxism through the pen of Marcuse. 

His essay, “Repressive Tolerance,” is the inspiration for what we now call “cancel culture.” Only certain accepted speech can be tolerated because actual tolerance is “repressive.” Written as part of a book called A Critique of Pure Tolerance, Marcuse argues that “tolerance today is in many of its most effective manifestations serving as a cause of oppression.” From the perspective of a cultural Marxist, of course it is. The perverse logic of Marcuse as a cultural Marxist has to be read to be believed. In this upside down, inside out world, tolerance “actually protects the already established machinery of discrimination.” Free speech and the First Amendment are considered dangerous; a common trope on the left is “speech is violence.” If that is true, of course it must not be tolerated, and we’ll see why from Marcuse’s perspective.

Part of his argument will serve to introduce us to Theodor Adorno. What Adorno did in 1950 allowed Marcuse to develop “the Nazi argument.” It was a diabolically genius move paying cultural dividends to this day. First Marcuse lays his cards on the table:

Liberating tolerance . . . would mean intolerance against movements from the Right, and toleration of movements from the left.

How convenient, but we’ll see why he says this when we get to Adorno. Then he gives us the punch line:

In past and different circumstances, the speeches of the Fascist and Nazi leaders were the immediate prologue to the massacre. The distance between the propaganda and the action, between the organization and its release on the people had become too short. But the spreading of the word could have been stopped before it was too late: if democratic tolerance had been withdrawn when the future leaders started their campaign, mankind would have had a chance of avoiding Auschwitz and a World War.

It’s a short trip from this to “speech is violence,” and by definition it can only be speech from the right. This led to a common phrase the New Left used in their protests against the Vietnam War in the 1960s, “No free speech for Fascists.” Thus what we know as cancel culture is a necessity to keep the right from doing what Fascists and Nazi’s always do. Not cancelling people on the right and their speech would be a dereliction of duty, the First Amendment be damned. Of course, all the political violence is on the left, but that is justified violence because it’s used against the Fascist right. A group using violence today can be called Antifa, for anti-fascists, with a straight face. You can’t make this stuff up!

Adorno was the one who made this connection in his 1950 book The Authoritarian Personality. Dinesh D’Souza in his book The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left has a section titled, “The Deceitful Origin of ‘Anti-Fascism.’” He writes that after World War II, “Nazism became the very measure of evil. So Marcuse and Adorno knew that anything associated with Nazism or fascism would automatically be tainted. They set about putting this obvious fact to political use on behalf of the political Left.” Fascism in this distortion of reality would now be associated with capitalism and moral traditionalism, which as we’ve seen must be “abolished.” 

D’Souza argues persuasively that Marxism and fascism are ideologies of the left, but because of Adorno they came to be associated with two different ends of the ideological and political spectrum. In his book Adorno introduced the F-Scale, in D’Souza’s words:

The basic argument was that fascism is a form of authoritarianism and that the worst manifestation of authoritarianism is self-imposed repression. Fascism develops early and we can locate it in young people’s attachments to religious superstition and conventual middle-class values about family, sex, and society.

So a la Marx, religion and the family must be “abolished.” The book and ideas were swallowed hook, line, and sinker by an already liberal academia and media, becoming the accepted perspective that fascism was a phenomenon of the right. It’s a complete lie, but that’s what Marxists do. Through the 1950s and into the 1960s, Hollywood was blatantly patriotic, but when the New Left exploded on the scene brining its cultural Marxism with them, it was only a matter of time until the Nazi’s were frequent guests on the big and small screen. Keep in mind, from the perspective of the woke leftists who make movies and TV shows, all references to Fascism and Nazi’s are a reflection on conservative, religious, traditional, patriotic, dare I say, MAGA Americans. That is how they see you, and me, as threats to Our DemocracyTM.

Wokeness Takes Over American Culture and the Solution
In a well-known exchange in The Sun Also Rises, Ernest Hemingway wrote: “‘How did you go bankrupt?’ Bill asked. ‘Two ways,’ Mike said. ‘Gradually, then suddenly.’” Gradually and suddenly perfectly describes the apparent suddenness of woke ideology completely taking over American culture the last handful of years. Like most people I was surprised but I shouldn’t have been. Not only had the Frankfurt School and cultural Marxism come to America in the 1930s, but as it took root with the leftist radicals in the ‘60s and ‘70s, those people went into academia and brought their cultural Marxism with them. From there many went into education and programmed a generation of children who are now adults into the woke Marxist worldview. This process has been going on for decades and it was only a matter of time before we experienced the cultural and governing effects we now have.

The modern-day cultural Marxists, the wokesters, have been programmed, or more accurately brainwashed, into Marx’s dialectical worldview of critique and crisis—or conflict theory. In a nutshell according to Marx, those with wealth and power try to hold on to it by any means possible, mainly by suppressing the poor and powerless. A basic premise of conflict theory is that individuals and groups within society will always work to maximize their own wealth and power. It’s an ugly view of reality which creates ugly people. All relationships are power struggles. Vladimir Lenin argued that the oppressed cannot of their own accord sufficiently understand the depths of their oppression and, therefore, need an intellectual class continually reminding them to be angry and feel hated.  Leftists push this emotional narrative of outrage which becomes axiomatic and unchallengeable—those who do must be silenced.

Wealth and economic power are no longer part of the oppression equation because the left, the cultural Marxists, are incredibly wealthy and have all the cultural and political power. So the “poor and powerless” of Marx are transferred to the culturally oppressed which has nothing to do with economics. There are many in the parade of victims we’re familiar with, including “people of color” which makes white people, especially males, the oppressors. Religious minorities are oppressed as well, which makes Christians (in the West) the oppressors. The most popular of the oppressed are the sexual minorities like lesbians, homosexuals, transgendered, etc. which makes heterosexuals the oppressors. There is even something comically evil called intersectionality which creates a hierarchy of oppression. At the top of the oppression scale would be white heterosexual Christian males, the worst of the worst, especially those married with families. Next in line would be heterosexual women again married with families. Single women regardless of their sexuality are always lower on the scale (meaning they are more easily oppressed) than married women. Any person of color regardless of sexual preference, marital status, or religious conviction is always lower on the scale, and so on. In addition, in the woke narrative any form of inequality is equivalent to oppression, and the full oppression matrix is the means to the end of total societal transformation into a Marxist Utopia, or whatever. In practice there is no such thing, so perpetual revolution via perpetual criticism is the result—misery forever. 

How do we counter wokeness and the cultural Marxists? It has to happen on three levels simultaneously: the political, the legal, and the cultural. If Christians really want this to change, it is going to take more than complaining, which we are all really good at. It is going to take work, involvement, and as the great Steve Bannon always says, action, action, action! Thankfully, since Trump and the Great Awakening we’ve been experiencing, conservatives and Christians are getting this like never in modern times, and it is extremely encouraging. We must remember, however, this secular, Marxists takeover of Western culture has been several hundred years in the making, and we are not going to change the direction of this massive societal ocean liner overnight.

Unfortunately, Pietism has had a pernicious influence on too many Christians who think engaging in politics and cultural pursuits is not “spiritual.” Too many Christians think supporting one particular political party perverts the gospel, when what really perverts the gospel is thinking it only applies to our personal, religious lives. Too many Christians think engaging in the “culture wars” is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic (I heard a pastor at a church we attended once say exactly that!), a diversion from saving souls and doing the true, spiritual work of the kingdom. This is the same kind of pernicious piety that truncates the gospel and Christianity as if it applied to only a narrow slice of life. It was the great Dutch theologian and statements, Abraham Kuyper, who rebuked such narrow-minded Christian thinking, famously saying:

There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry, Mine!

Cultural Marxism and wokeness lead to misery and societal decay, as we see all around us, while Christianity and God’s law leads to blessing and societal flourishing. If we want America to flourish again and God to bless our land, we will take Christ out of our churches into every square inch of existence, including all that is political, legal, and cultural.